Menu

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Mike Smith from Mike Smith’s Political Commentary started this series of articles on Apartheid a couple of years ago. It is well worth the read. You probably know everything about the propaganda. How about some facts?
We suggest you read the article from Republican Trekker Volk on the true origins of Apartheid as an introduction to Mike’s articles.TIA MYSOA created an index to the individual articles.

11
Opinion(s):

Anonymous
said...

This is an excellent series by Mike Smith. A bit disappointed with the suggested introduction - "Republican Trekker Folk" - they seem to think it important to disassociate the Boers from creation of Apartheid. I think the creation of Apartheid is primary evidence for the superior intelligence of Whites. Of course the virus of Liberalism has lately been destroying that intelligence at a rate of knots!

Until Whites wake up and confront the lies at the heart of the Liberal/ Leftist attack against them, civilisation will continue to be destroyed. "Anti-racism", NOT "racism", is the great evil. Non-discrimination is evil - justice demands discrimination. If you do not love your own, you cannot love the "other". Leftists use the "other" to destroy what they hate: Christian Civilisation.

Apartheid was about protecting Civilisation from savagery. Those who created it had great foresight. Whether Boer or Brit, I salute them. The only hope for civilisation in a multiracial society is Apartheid.

Hence my suggestion to read the article which gives background on the "origins of Apartheid".

The article is clearly written on historical facts and states the concern that the backlash from this has been directed towards Boers, as if they were solely responsible for its origin and implementation.

The article that later became: The Boers Did Not Create Apartheid was in fact a response I composed & posted earlier to hit-piece articles written by hate filled folks like Richard Catto who among others was advocating for the genocide of Afrikaans speakers & claimed that if all the Boers could have been killed off in the concentration camps that "there would not have been any Apartheid" which a cursory glance of history would tell you is a complete lie as ALL of the architects of Apartheid did not come from the Boer population group.

Folks like that also routinely forget that most Afrikaners are not descended from the Boer population group. Thus he entire premise is based on faulty logic to start with.

While it is true that some [ probable ] Boer descendents like Charles Robberts Swart / Eben Donges & [ confirmed Boer descendent ] Hans Strijdom did in fact play a role in legislating some Apartheid laws - the point I was trying to get across was that it was not formulated by any Boers & that outrageously calling for their genocide would not have prevented Apartheid. [ In fact the genocide against the Boers played a role in the rationalization of adopting Apartheid laws. ] I was pointing this out because all I ever hear is the dangerous canard that "the Boers created Apartheid" thus demonstrating a total lack of critical thinking & ability to research on the part of those who make that erroneous claim. Critical thinking is required in order to get at the full truth.

Anon: I think you totally forget that Apartheid was started by the imperial powers & the left itself. Apartheid has been called socialism with a racist face [ noted at this link. ] simply because part of its origin stemmed from the anti Capitalist uprising by White mine workers who did not want their salaries undercut by the importation of "cheap labour" when the mining companies began recruiting more Bantus from their traditional areas of habitation.

Some notable Apartheid laws were passed under the National / Labour coalition government. Which at the time were both quite leftist political parties. The National Party gradually began to jettison its earlier socialist leaning in favour of a group based form of Capitalism. Which was still to the left of pure Capitalism.

Furthermore since Apartheid was used by the international left as an all too convenient scapegoat that they used to demonize the White population in general: I am convinced that the main purpose Apartheid was aimed at serving [ by the supra elite above the national governments that is ] was to acquire international opprobrium against the White population in general & the government in particular. Or at least the notion of a White government.

Now of course there were true believers who thought it could work & some tried to make it work but none other than the intellectual creator of Grand Apartheid / Separate Development himself Werner Eiselen [ a son of German missionaries ] ultimately left the government & stated publicly that his vision of Grand Apartheid - what he called Separate Development was doomed as the White population was not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to make it work on the large scale that it required.

I think you have to ask why was such an "over ambitious political system" [ as it was rightly called ] was ever attempted to be put in place in the first place when it was doomed to fail from the start? Do you not suppose that there was a larger agenda at play here? Namely ginning up an unjust reputation of the general White population as hardline oppressors - despite the total lack of grass roots behind the implementation of Apartheid?

Do you not suppose that the British WANTED the Afrikaans speakers to make a big deal about imposing [ or rather in reality simply continuing & reorganizing ] Apartheid so as to incur the fabricated international opprobrium which resulted? It seems quite obvious to me that this was the whole point of Apartheid [ from the standpoint of the supra elites of course ] as it was portrayed.

Whatever merits the general notion of Separate Development had certainly was totally lost by the fiat manner in which the then system was implemented [ to the very limited extent that it was ] & the unflattering attention is brought onto the local White population.

There was a totally much more effective & just method to safeguard the principles of self determination than to grab the ring of Sauron by capturing the entire illegal & artificial macro State of South Africa & get labeled as "extremists" [ & worse ] in the process.

Though as I pointed out: this was highly probably the intent of the British based supra masters all along because they killed a lot of birds with one stone.

A) They were now able to demonize the Afrikaans speakers more effectively had they not taken over the middleman government as "surrogate Colonial rulers" [ a term used by Johann Wingard in A Democracy That Could Have Been.]

B) They were able to stop Boer self determination better than ever as the Boers were [ generally ] propagandized into seeing themselves as part of the Afrikaners [ thus tricked into fighting to defend the macro State of South Africa instead of their own historic Boer Republics ] therefore could tell those Boers who wanted self determination or the return of their Boer Republics: "you don't have to... your contemporaries [ sic - re: see Cape Dutch vs Boer segments ] control South Africa... so why do you want your republics back".

C) They were able to continue apace with the securing of the region's resources & minerals while deflecting attention from themselves by highlighting the behaviour of the Afrikaans speaking government.

Read this great [ but not totally accurate vis a vis Boer identity & the imposition of the Afrikaner designation ] Right-leaning libertarian article entitled: The Devil & Dr. Verwoerd. & its analysis of how the Afrikaans speakers got conned into taking control by making a Faustian bargain with British Imperialism which eventually got them viewed "as Neo-Nazis" [ as the article states ] All by design I think because it ultimately served the British based & Globalist agenda of covert rule in the region.

Therefore I ask you: who really benefited from Apartheid? The local White population - who were pawns in the elitist game conned into defending a macro State that worked against their long term interests of survival - or the supra elite & mining magnates? who were able to cleverly & effectively deflect attention away from themselves & the Apartheid policies that they started on the mines by offloading the opprobrium onto the puppet government.

Remember also that the Boer people [ particularly those who were not under the Afrikaner spell ] were also oppressed under the Apartheid system [ as Theuns Cloete of the Transvaal Separatists think tank & now of Boervolk Radio has rightly pointed out as well ] as their heritage & identity was being stolen & repressed & numerous Boer Patriots - like Robert van Tonder - who were calling for the restoration of the Boer Republics [ in part as a just remedy to the escalating racial impasse but also to regain Boer self determination which was rescinded after the second Anglo-Boer War ] were severely repressed & subverted by the Broederbond & its National Party government.

The general concept of Apartheid is not a White originated system! The very first Apartheid laws ever implemented in Africa was done by the Americo-Liberian rulers of Liberia in the mid 19th cent. [ Click link for more. ] Back when the Boer Republics were still independent. Furthermore the Bantu settlers of southern Africa imposed a far more brutal form of Apartheid when they arrived separating [ at least politically - they absorbed some culturally & biologically ] themselves off from the aboriginal Khoisan population to the point where they ultimately decimated the Khoisan population within the areas that they had settled.

So no: Apartheid is not a White system but rather an inherent system often practiced by numerous peoples all over the world.

Furthermore the point of Apartheid - as employed by the middlemen governments of South Africa was not about "defending Christian civilization" despite the rhetoric used by some but rather was - A) on the part of the mining magnates who started it: - simply about securing a source of cheap labour [ they even imposed "hut taxes" to force the Bantus into the White regions to work on the mines ] - & B) on the part of the politicians: about securing control over the macro State at a middleman level & C) on the part of those among the population which supported it: - about preventing themselves from being overrun by the large & growing non-White population.

What you forget is that the Boers played the most minimal part in formulating Apartheid. The Cape Dutch [ such as JBM Hertzog / Jan Smuts / D F Malan & outright Dutch but assimilated Afrikaner Hendrik Verwoerd & British [ imperial rather than the local population - ie: Cecil Rhodes / Theophilus Shepstone / Lord Alfred Milner etc. ] played a much larger role in developing & implementing the Apartheid laws than the subjugated Boer population.

Furthermore: a little aside on Mike Smith. I have caught him lying about things so many times that I have been forced to take much of what he posts with a grain of salt. Furthermore: the debate should be about who was behind Apartheid & why did they want to tar the local White population with it when [ as I noted in the past ] Apartheid was not autogenous - as much of what was created & legislated was taken from ideas & laws from abroad such as the Canadian Indian Affairs Act / the Jim Crow Laws of the United States / & the strict separation along confessional lines of Holland. Apartheid was a conglomeration of various other segregationist laws as enacted in other countries & was essentially nothing new.

Though I was glad to see Mike's recent articles in the series note how the so called Right is subverted & controlled & was glad to see him admit that Vorster was a Smuts government agent sent to infiltrate the Ossewa Brandwag. Considering his past [ or other old SAS bloggers ] open support for the HNP [ another controlled opposition group ] I was quite surprised to see him admit such a general taboo on their part. I think P W Botha [ who was said to have been a member of the Ossewa Brandwag as well ] was likely a double agent as well.

When you think about it & talking all the evidence & his telling admissions into account: Mike is no conservative at all as he simply went from being a liberal to a neo conservative [ ie: fake conservative or nominal conservative ]. His telling attacks on the Boer people's struggle for independence should tell you all you should know about him seeing as how they are generally the most conservative section of the local arbitrarily grouped macro White population.

You have always explained your analysis very thoroughly and it should be clear to anybody reading your posts that you are only interested in the truth. That and the fact that I know you to be a person of character.